Change of email no ground for non-service of notice as in ITR email of counsel was given

Change of email address no ground for non-service of show cause notice as in return filed email of counsel was given

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3505 (2021) (06) HC

The assessee had filed a Writ Petition challenged the ex parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) which inter alia confirmed the disallowance made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC).  

The Petitioner assessee was a college and in the return of income filed it had claimed exemption under Section10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). However, the said exemption was disallowed by the CPC after notice.

The Only ground taken in the writ petition was that the show cause notice had not been served upon the petitioner for the reason that he had changed his email address and information in that regard had been sent to the department.

The contention was that the show cause notice had been served upon the petitioner only when he received a message (SMS) on his mobile.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that previously in the return filed by the petitioner, email address of his counsel had been given. Thus admittedly, that email address of the assessee had not been provided to the department.

The Hon’ble High Court rejected the contention that with the change of counsel, email address had to be changed and stated that the plea of change of email address cannot be taken as a ground for non-service of the show cause notice.

It was observed that the return filed by the petitioner/assessee had been processed by CPC and after serving a show cause notice, it had disallowed the exemption claimed under Section10(23C)(iiiab). Against the said order, the assessee had already filed an appeal before the CIT (A) which was pending.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that against the impugned assessment order, appropriate remedy is to file an appeal under Section 246A of the Act.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it
• Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC
• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST
• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC